Nuclear Energy vs Other Non-Fossil Fuel based energy sources

I believe that we need to invest in and deploy nuclear energy. We have a much better chance of innovating and surviving our way through a nuclear energy era than we do through the current fossil fuel era extended for a couple of hundred more years. What do you believe?

Mar 25 2011:
To be clear, I agree with the original poster's premise. I have looked over this thread, and reviewed a few of the comments in depth, but not all. There are two points I think missing. First, who pays? Electricity is generated and sold as a business. Electricity is not a "government program", a "right of existence", a "community service", or a charity. The corporation selling electricity has to profit. (And the customers want the product at the lowest price). Thumbrule of business - Big factories make widgets cheaper per unit than small factories. That suggests big baseload will be cheaper than distributed production.

Second, anyone reading this thread is doing so on an expensive computer of some kind. We are the rich. Who are we to be deciding what the rest of the world has to pay for their energy?

My point? Cost matters, and you can not escape that. Right now, wind is more expensive to build and get return on investment than either coal or nuclear, and there are reliability issues. Solar is hugely more expensive.

Continue the R&D. Push hard. Fund some projects in wind and solar. (Let T. Boone Pickens make a pile on his wind farm and show us how to do it). But keep the costs in view. Personally, I think for now, nuclear will be a needed.

Mar 26 2011:
Dewey, one point for clarification. Electricity production is not always run by corporate entities. There are municipal, state, and even country run electric companies. Furthermore, even when managed by private corporations they are often heavily subsidized by governments in one form or another. For example, government money is spent to fund research or building power stations.

Apr 5 2011:
Adam: OF COURSE power can be supplied by coops or other "not for profit" entities.......And the business model applies equally to them as the investor owned for profit corporations. With a couple of tweaks possibly. At the low end, I submit they are even more profit driven than the big guys. They are not as worried about their "corporate image"..........At the higher end, they may not be as worried about "big mistakes" as the corporate entities. They can simply raise rates or taxes to compensate. Their buffer is not falling stock prices but public backlash, which is generally less responsive.

And, no I'm not saying that subsidization is bad - In fact if you read my original post I support it. IN AN INCUBATOR capacity. Not as public policy.........Public policy needs to weigh all factors balanced. Cost is one. Risk is one. Reliability is one. And so on. Have a happy.

may I ask you, whether your conclusions and assumptions are based on any actual statistics?

I know the stats and I've postet links to them in some of my earlier postings.
Because I draw different conclusions from them, I would very much like to get to know the data upon which your argument is based.

In case you don't have such, I would kindly ask you to question your own beliefs.

Apr 3 2011:
"Big factories make widgets cheaper per unit than small factories. That suggests big baseload will be cheaper than distributed production."

> not true. This would only be true if the 'big' and 'small' suppliers were making the same technology.

"Right now, wind is more expensive to build and get return on investment than either coal or nuclear, and there are reliability issues. Solar is hugely more expensive."

> actually, this is also not true. Wind and solar are both (right now!) cheaper than nuclear energy, and are rapidly approaching cost-competitiveness with coal. It won't show up on your electricity bill, but as taxpayers, our tax dollars subsidise nuclear (and coal!) for exploration, mining, research, insurance, liability for major disasters (like Fukushima...), security, regulation, decommissioning, and for (eternal) storage of nuclear waste.

Apr 6 2011:
Well Anna, you certainly can have your own opinion on business issues. It IS however true that in general, economy of scale mean lower cost to produce. I'm sorry you don't understand my message. Cost matters.

And you don't have it right on electricity production costs either. From low to high (USA numbers) ......Hydro, Natural Gas, Nuclear and Coal are about equal, Wind, Off Shore Wind, Solar Thermal, and finally Solar PV. For the US market, Natural Gas is hugely undervalued right now, utilities making base load Natural Gas are going to have a price shock when the laws of supply and demand come into play.

I think you have it upside down on the subsidy issue too. Right now, wind is being built only because of huge subsidies. (If I could get 65%-75% of my capital costs covered by the taxpayer, I would build wind towers too). Some subsidy is fine of course. There are indications on solar PV that are encouraging. It may be soon that for new construction it would make little sense to build a house or commercial building without solar PV panels. But. The technology is NOT there yet.

In fact, I will leave you with this riddle....IF solar and wind were that promising, why did the USA not adopt it from the 1973 energy shock? Carter ranted and raved about becoming less dependent upon foreign energy. Just where are we now??????? (The answer is that the technological issues of cost and reliability have not been worked out.)

Apr 6 2011:
The fossils are going to run out - and on the way there they are going to become more and more expensive. It's pure economics. A limited good with an increasing demand.

Because of this, some renewable technologies - that do not rely on the use of fossils in their production too much - are going to become more and more competitive.

But in the mid-term it is only going to be about one abstract thought only: where energy is and how we can harvest it in a way that doesn't cost us more than it brings in. And obviously every day unimaginable amounts of energy from the sun are wasted. Just think about it. Take an astronomy class.

The time of complete transition is going to come, because it has to.

My argument is that we have to embrace research and investment in renewable technologies instead of waiting until it is too late and we run out of energy, or others have the technologies.
There are good reasons to invest in renewables and it doesn't matter that much whether those investments are private or public, because the latter simply is a gigantic economic force that exists. What matters is only that those investments are taking place. Why?

Imagine the world without fossils. Cities and societies would collapse.
Imagine a world with efficient technologies to harvest the energy of the sun, opening gigantic opportunities of growth.

Now in what world do you want to live in?
And do you want to be the one with the key to this world, or do you prefer to wait and sit around, hoping that eventually someone opens that door for you?

Sure we don't know if it is possible - but that doesn't mean we'd know that it isn't.
Cost matters. I agree, but draw different conclusions.

Anyhow, now that the discussion is over in a few hours, I'd like to say that it was a pleasure talking to you as well as everyone else throughout the course of this discussion. I hope that I was able to inspire some to rethink established beliefs through my postings..

Mar 17 2011:
Austria it´s one of the countries that if not 100% of its energy, its produced by rivers lakes and dams (hydraulic), just as an example that its possible to use other types of energy, eolic, solar, wave action, ocean termal, geotermic, etc. i think nuclear its faster and more powerfull yes, but pollutes and its a big danger to ourselfs (whats happening in Japan isn´t enough prove) i think nowadays its stupid to keep poroducing things that after certain amount of time will affect us direclty or indirectly. We just have to put a piece of mind into designing in a better way and really put effort on creating alternatives on energy plants. My very personal opinion. Thanks for reading.

Mar 18 2011:
thinking similar here with an addition -if we could reduce our consumption and dependence on technology, it would be better. there has been an excellent idea about carrying capacity of an entire eco-system. it includes energy production of course, from all alternative sources but nuclear power. personally thinking if we could stay within the limit of that allocated average expenditure and consumption limits in case of energy that is suppose to be sustainable by alternative sources present at one ecology, it might solve the problem. (this idea is quite close to WTO workings in business sector.) the core concept is- controlling the demand but the supply side.

Mar 27 2011:
When it comes to solar panels and wind, it always seems to be compared on a mega-scale. Where is the analysis of putting panels on every effective rooftop or small wind driven devices on top of every light pole and connecting it to the same grid the light pole is using? Maybe it won't solve everything, but through efficiency, design evolution and energy efficient building materials I seems like it would be better than some mega-structure. Create it where it's used.

Mar 21 2011:
I came across some data on deaths related to various energy sources. The data is measured in deaths/TWh for all energy sources. Here is the original link: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html He seems to provide good sources and a reasonable explanation of the calculations involved. I realize this is just one variable in a very complex equation on energy needs but to me it's a very important one.

My interpretation of the results is that eliminating all forms of energy above the solar line should be our collective goal. I believe that can only be done with an emphasis on nuclear. Many here disagree. The good news is that all of our choices in this thread appear to be safe in terms of mortality rates. Let the attacks re-commence...

Mar 21 2011:
Bill, I appreciate this angle on the energy discussion. I apologize if my contributions to the discussion appear as attacks. This has not been my intention. I am still not an advocate of nuclear power, however.

While this is a most interesting data set on energy production, I have questions. What are the deaths attributed to solar, wind, and hydro attributed to? Worker accidents? Widening the scope of assessment, we know that carbon based energy systems and nuclear have the most damaging environmental and human impacts. This assessment includes not only death but also disease, quality of life. We know that we have no idea what to do with spent nuclear materials, and they hazards they poise not only for health, but also for national security. Within this more holistic picture, I cannot advocate for nuclear knowing that safer (within these metrics) options exist.

I like your assertion "that eliminating all forms of energy above the solar line should be our collective goal." I would support this with the addition of "through the use of existing nuclear power and the development of our renewable energy capacity. Furthermore, with the ultimate goal to decommission and cease the use of nuclear power once renewable energies have been scaled." As it is said, "follow the money." If we put the money into truly renewable energy now instead of nuclear we can achieve a safer, cleaner future sooner. Otherwise we will continue investing in the degradation of our ecological and human health, while producing more nuclear material to potentially be used in weapons.

What are your thoughts considering these wider impacts on the earth and its inhabitants?

From the article: "France, which completely reprocesses its recyclable material, stores all the unused remains -- from 30 years of generating 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy -- beneath the floor of a single room at La Hague."

Mar 21 2011:
How can you count the effects of the small increase in radiation caused by Chernobyl throughout Europe, caused by Fukushima througout Japan?

How can you assess the danger of one technology under todays conditions, if conditions might change?

Wouldn't it be naive to believe, just as Japan did, that nothing could happen, because nothing did happen so far?

Do these statistics include the deaths - and - illnesses of mine-workers, natives and the Children of Chernobyl?
Because it is not just about deaths. It is not just about what can be counted and what not.
It is about life - and that doesn't just mean not to be dead.

Mar 19 2011:
Apparently my last two postings have been deleted or got lost, maybe because I had too many links in them.. So, here again a few important facts about wind power in comparison to nuclear, as an answer to Bill's question regarding the scalability of off-shore wind parks.

The following posting contains information from the main Wiki-articles on wind power, nuclear energy and off-shore wind energy:

Off-shore wind power indeed has been tested especially by scandinavian countries.
A few 200-300MW parks have already been built. while some dozens of parks in the 400MW capacity range, with a few going up to as high as 1000-2000MW, let alone in Germany are currently under construction or in approval process. (according to offshore-wind.de)

While wind energy in general accounts for ~2% of world electricity, it doubled during the last 3 years. (according to Wikipedia, which might not be 100% up do date)

In comparison, nuclear power declined a few percent in the past years, while intriguingly no new plants at all were built in 2007. (see "use" paragraph of nuclear power wiki-article)

Those trajectories make quite clear which technology holds the future. Not to talk of other possible renewables.

Mar 18 2011:
I appreciate your forthright declaration of belief. I do not agree with you. If we are going to talk about energy production with no conversation about the unspoken mantras that drive forward our tremendous consumption of it, then let's be clear about that to start off.

If we aren't going to talk about efficiency and conservation, either, than let's be clear about that too.

Here is an example of an alternative to fossil and nuclear fuel that has real promise to meet the modern world's needs without the modern world dieting its energy consumption. Deep Off-Shore Wind. There is almost 4 times as much energy available 50 nautical miles off the United States shores as the country uses. I highlight the United States, because this article does and because we are the current model for modern development. http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/how-much-will-offshore-wind-really-cost/

Mar 18 2011:
I'm glad someone with clout has posted such an interesting link - we should employ common sense too -
on a basic approach 'tsunami' or 'hurricane' or 'earthquake' or 'global warming' really means 'water'. Looking at the feats of engineering achieved already in Japan, China & in the world as a whole - it would seem that however we respond or risk-manage, water is the key.

I will read your link with enthusiasm as every time I see a disaster emerge, the 'common sense' voice in my head says wouldn't it be great if we GENERATED power during the most fragile time instead of it 'crippling' the infrastructure & relative energy grid?

I am sure the Japanese would take an incredible hydro-project over reactor 7+ being built at Fukushima right now.

Mar 18 2011:
Adam, my working assumption when I initiated the debate was that few people would (at least publicly) agree with me. The public has not disappointed! ;)

You, correctly in my opinion, insinuate that we have a resource-abuse problem. I couldn't agree more. I don't know how to solve that problem. Maybe when our generation dies off our kids and their kids will be smarter about conserving resources then we were.

For better or worse I've seen nothing of any realistic nature in the many great postings here to convince me that any other technology can scale to meet our needs on a global basis, to replace fossil fuels, the way nuclear can.

I read the article you sent on off-shore wind. If one country would deploy it at scale it would sway my thinking. Your probably saw Gate's TED talk from last year on building better, cheaper and even more productive nuclear reactors (that he is investing in). In case you missed it: http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2010/02/bill_gates_goes.html

Mar 19 2011:
Bill, you keep saying that nuclear could scale - which I obviously do not believe as can be read in my part 2 / 5 posting (which refers to current - available and non-breeder - reactor technology only) - but aside possible projects in development like the thorium reactor, the small reactors B.G. funds, fusion, liquid fuel reactors, etc., what evidence or logical conclusion can you give?

I'm not against development and research in nuclear, though I'm very skeptical about pressure to actually apply those technologies which might arise as an economical imperative from high investments, as it is claimed by the BBC documentation mentioned earlier to have been the case in the ninteen-sixties.

But as far as I know, there is a long record of highly promising, yet unsuccessful research projects which stretches through the past decades. Thus, I have come to the conclusion that it is common for such projects to be portrayed as the future of energy, without ultimately being able to deliver on that promise so far.

Because of this, I believe enthusiasm for such ideas does not help a rational weighing of options. ;-)

Regarding your comment: "For better or worse I've seen nothing of any realistic nature in the many great postings here to convince me that any other technology can scale to meet our needs on a global basis, to replace fossil fuels, the way nuclear can."

How does the evidence that there is enough wind energy 50 miles off the coast of the United States to produce 4x the energy currently used in the entire US, not provide evidence that the opportunity exists to scale wind turbine technology to meet the world's energy needs?

If scaling of alternative energy is largely funded by government streams, and government funding is largely determined by political will (and hopefully some common sense and logic), then don't we the people need to make sure we are helping to set the course for our energy future?

Regarding your comment: "You, correctly in my opinion, insinuate that we have a resource-abuse problem. I couldn't agree more. I don't know how to solve that problem."

We need to make this correction in our own lives and choices, and demand policies that will also realign us to fundamental ecological truths we exist within. Do these solutions not seem reasonable to you?

Just because the energy is there does not mean it can be easily tapped and brought to people at scale. As I said, if one government were to run a real world test and show that it works at scale, I'd probably become a supporter. I'm skeptical, but always open to a better way.

It basically argues what most people have already stated: "Before pouring billions into creating a new generation of nuclear or gas power stations, we need to ask whether that money would be better invested in other, more sustainable energy technologies"

Mar 17 2011:
The case against nuclear is that it is not economically viable. It's far more expensive than anything else and it prevents those dollars from being spent on renewables. Renewables such as wind and solar have incredible potential considering the amount of energy that falls on the earth every day from the Sun. At the moment they may not be quite as cheap as coal or oil (unless you factor in the cost of the war for oil, or the costs of cleaning up pollution and healthcare costs from those living near coal plants). But much as all other technologies, they will rapidly improve with enough demand. Look how far cell phones have come in the last decade due to demand. Imagine when every home has solar panels on their roofs, how effective they will become.

Also, energy efficiency in our cars, homes and businesses is the most cost effective way to go. Watch Amory Lovins talk 'how to win the oil end game' and see how close we came to eliminating our dependence on foreign oil in the 70's.

Mar 17 2011:
Tao, you make a couple of excellent points. I have struggled with these issues in forming my own opinions. I remember reading "The Reckoning" as well back in the mid-80's which was a wake up call for me in a similar fashion.

However, I simply don't see how countries like the US, China, India, Russia, etc can deploy wind, solar and hydro-electric at a large enough scale to replace fossil fuels. Nuclear, vis-a-vis, the French example seems to be the only viable option that scales.

Mar 18 2011:
Well, I can see you are an apologist for the nuclear industry. Why don't you discuss how the "reprocessing" of waste works in France and it's impact. I simple don't see how your "nuclear or bust" attitude is helpful to our need to develop alternatives to fossil fuels.

Mar 18 2011:
I am not an apologist for anyone or anything. You don't know me, so please don't presume that you do. My intent here is to foster a civl debate among people that care about our future as it relates to our energy needs. If you have an opinion about our energy needs, please share it, I'm sure we'd all love to hear it. Thanks.

Mar 18 2011:
What about the bio-fuels and the newer meta-materials referenced in your listed talks (Juan Enriquez) as well as future design RE computational power & nano-technology? (For the populist approach - Ray Kurzweil, Stephen Wolfram and many others for the computational power & proof) These designs are already happening & the transformation of simple cells into photo-voltaic energy within the right time-scale is being MASSIVELY overlooked by many people in the energy debate.

It is obviously going to be a hectic (nuclear included) system, with compensatory base-load sourcing globally for many years - but what I and I think many others distress at is that whilst we have harnessed the powers of the sun in terms of hydro-carbons (burning wood, plant energy and only relatively recently coal & oil - the heart of the problem now) we then 'jumped' a rung on the energy ladder by attempting to copy the sun. With the finance (including 50 years of failed fusion too) I feel humanity has been forced to reach too far by not balancing the investment in autonomous solar power as the evolution oil companies, wars and therefore often sciences most misaligned progress as well as events like Tunguska sped up the capital research into nuclear (hence the age of the reactors, financing and enormous times-cales involved in building & safety aspects that would NEVER be allowed in other industry) This funding should now be focusing on this gap we jumped into developing within a decade - %100 safe, renewable & economically viable solar unit energy first. It is a moral obligation & opportunity to re-discover, re-fund & inspire 12 year olds now into being involved in these break-through labs, not risking their lives in 25 years aboard a 2010 constructed floating radioactive powerstation, as Japanese engineers currently are.
I appreciate you allowing a series of very well informed responses on here & I wish the Japanese people all the best will in the world in rebuilding & restoring their world.

Mar 17 2011:
If the purpose of energy production is to serve mankind, then its best that we have the people, who are going to use it, alive.

If the source of energy or the process by which it becomes usable harms human life directly (for instance nuclear radiation
) or indirectly (fossil fuels harm the environment we live in) then its pointless to put so much effort into it.

Yes, I agree that we had no alternate in the past. But now we do, renewable energy has more potential, is cleaner and is getting efficient by the day. Its just "expensive" .. I don't think notes of cotton and linen with numbers written on them is enough reason to not shift to a better future.

Mar 17 2011:
I think Bill is right, nuclear power is the only answer at the moment for base load power, its OK saying we can use wind, solar or tidal, but its something thats going to happen 5 or 10 years down the track, we need to start building nuclear now and shutting down coal and gas and then we can start looking at renewable s.

Mar 17 2011:
So you say that renewables are going to be big in 5-10 years? And until then nuclear power plants should be built?
You are aware that one nuclear power plant takes usually 7-15 years to build?

You are also mentioning base load, but are you aware that by putting various renewable energy sources into a large grid, you can counterbalance the peaks and lows of those single sources and sites, so that you'll achieve a higher base load than you would with unconnected sites alone?

You are also aware of the fact that a nuclear power plant is a long term commitment? Once you decide to pursue this way, you decide not to pursue other energy technologies. But hey, I don't have a problem with you making such wise decisions. If you don't embrace renewables, others will. ;-)

By the way, could you go into detail on this base load power claim? I would really like to know the numbers...

Mar 14 2011:
Nuclear byproducts are deadly. Some of them (like plutonium-239) can kill, fast. Burying nuclear waste for 1000's of years is not viable, especially as seeing nuclear fuel would only last a few centuries at most. When it ran out, we'd be faced with another energy crisis, but with highly toxic waste as a byproduct.

If current reactors carry on at the current rate, uranium will last for about 200 years. If we all switched to nuclear power now, with current reactors, we'd run out *fast*. Yes, better reactors are being built, but they're still fragile. The recent earthquakes and tsunamis in Japan have illustrated just how fragile nuclear reactors are. If a solar cell went wrong, nothing much would happen. If a nuclear plant went wrong, it could explode. And when a nuclear plant explodes, that's bad. Look at Chernobyl.

Mar 13 2011:
Supporting renewable sources and talking about how we could conceivably only use them to solve the energy crises definitely makes us feel nice, just like supporting the organic movement does. These concepts are intrinsically correct, but it is clear that due largely to lack of public enthusiasm they are not sufficient. I think we need to be more realistic about what will work in the near future to rid us of our dependance on fossil fuels, nuclear energy will work.

Mar 13 2011:
Why do you think that it will work? It didn't so far. It just doesn't have the scale, and there are reasons for that - not just environmental. Give an argument please. Or better take a look at mine a few postings (especially Part 2 / 5) below and tell me what you think about it. :-)

Please don't tell me that TED is just another Internet-Forum...

PS: Now the third nuclear power plant in Japan experiences problems.. ..just mentioning. ;-)

Mar 17 2011:
Renewable energy is here. It is closing the gap on cost per watt more and more when compared to coal. I believe it long ago became more cost effective that nuclear per watt. To think that it is more 'practical' to spend 7-15 years building new nuclear plants instead of investing in renewable energy is backwards indeed. With the money going to renewables we will see them become cheaper and more effective. They are already a good investment as they pay themselves off in many areas in 8-10 years (a 10-12% return on your investment).

To be practical we must combine this with energy conservation and energy efficiency

Emissions - CO² neutral?
1. Mines = broken up soil by earthmovers using fossil fuels
2. Centrifugation = uses electricity generated by nuclear (e.g. France) or fossils (e.g. Russia)
3. Transportation = no electric car = fossils
4. Power Plant = lots of concrete, materials and stuff ;-)
5. Infrastructure & waste storage = even more facilities
----------------
= not so CO² neutral = ~28-160g/kWh (average ~60g/kWh)
In order: coal - nuclear - renewables
Climate scientist Helga-Kromp-Kolb stated a few years ago that 70 new reactors per year were needed to achieve a significant impact on climate change by being able to switch off coal fired power plants. Currently only a hand full go online annually - the industry could not scale, even if it wanted to for named reasons.

Public Relations - bad public information after most nuclear disasters (e.g. radiation leaks, distribution through wind & weather); some marketers talk about CO² neutrality which is obviously frivolous; anti-nuclear movements obstructing spread of nuclear infrastructure (e.g. Germany's castor transports, Austrian's Zwentendorf power plant, Canadian/Australian/... opposition against Uranium mining); public let to believe that nuclear is vital, due to overproportional coverage in media (almost nobody who is not familiar with the stats would guess anywhere near 6% of global primary energy supply)

Mar 7 2011:
I saw something the other day -- I forget where it was -- that claimed that not one single nuclear power plant has ever been built anywhere in the world without public subsidy. This may or may not be true, but nuclear power plants certainly do seem to go horrendously over budget with alarming frequency. Also, they are not that ecologically friendly if one considers their huge appetite for cooling water; they make irreversible changes downstream. And finally there is the ever-present question of what to do with the spent fuel.

Having said that, I am sure that nuclear power will be inevitable because it is better (less bad?) than the alternatives: wind, solar, etc. As fossil fuels become more and more impractical to extract and refine, I see a day when ever more expensive oil will be used for mobile applications, it being still the most practical way of storing and moving latent energy, and nuclear power will provide the static power we will need for our factories and homes. I also suspect it will manifest itself in many ways quite different from what we generally regard as nuclear power today

Mar 7 2011:
While I don't disagree, I wish your question was more elaborate. Nuclear energy's idea is where we are headed. A compact area of energy containment for a larger area. Though we have pushed level of efficiency , which include being clean to a higher degree. I believe our future lies within magnetic and potential energy to create true efficiency of an advanced level. Nuclear energy, which must remind people, is nothing more then a super steam engine. It is not anything much more advanced then coal. Another words we have not harnessed the energy of the nuclear matter we have simply directed its heat to do nothing more then power an engine as our 18th centuries ancestors have done. We are looking for more advanced technology.

Mar 8 2011:
I absolutely loved that debate, Sabin. Thanks for posting it for me to see again. It changed my mind from tipping toward nuclear to against nuclear.
It was so enlightening and satisfying to see two experts with wisdom and good will go head to head on a major issue facing our world without any rancor or personal attacks. Just the facts.
I really hope that TED will organize debates on a variety of issues that have two strong points of view for the benefit of us all.

Mar 7 2011:
You probably feel like you are in a minority, because you live in Los Gatos! ;-)

Our consumer-based media runs on FUD, fear, uncertainty and doubt.

Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, The China Syndrome and Homer Simpson have poisoned rational thinking in the collective consciousness. The Energy business's Achilles heel is reactionary PR. Sure, there are bad things that can happen if resources are not managed well, but the benefits are so abundant that everyone takes them for granted.

We don't have a technology and innovation problem with energy, there are lots of reasonable solutions. Nuclear is viable, but so are fossil fuels, especially clean-burning LNG. North America has more natural gas than Saudi Arabia!

The problems are perceptual, and as long as there are FUD-meisters like Al Gore and Michael Moore, warping that perception, *without thoughtful counterpoint* we are in for a literal world-of-hurt.

If Energy companies were as good as Phillip Morris in selling their benefits, we would all be winners.

It's a positioning problem, more than anything else. The major benefit of Energy companies isn't power, it's quality of life, and as long as people think that their quality of life is going to be worse from an industry that is actually making it better, there is going to be a major problem.

Energy isn't the only quality of life industry that's under attack. Bio-engineered food designed to feed billions of more people is a target now too...

I say build the nuclear plants as fast as we can, but let's get people to love them for the modern wonder that they actually are, instead of fearing them like some evil villain in a bad movie...

Mar 14 2011:
wow What a statement! "If energy companies were as good as Philip Morris in selling their benefits, we would all be winners".
To site a cigarette company as an icon of effective marketing in this context is seriously scary. Tobacco manufacturers have been masters in manipulating the general public into actually sucking in poison and shortening their lives.
I just thank GOD that we are not in a position to have any more illogical and pathogenic sources of energy foist upon us by astute marketers.

Apr 6 2011:
We have to think towars the future, and start to improving a new way of generate energy without put in risk the people lives and all the world.
Today, the facts show us, that this is not a solution and we continue investing money in future problems.
We have to pay attentions of this advices and change a lot of things. It´s the time to do it!

Mar 29 2011:
Can anyone help me on understand this point a little bit: Amory Lovin's lecture on "winning the oil endgame was given in February 2005 (link below). And he spoke very convincingly that we could do it without nuclear, through conservation, new technologies and renewables. But that wasn't really brought up here. I'm coming to the details of this broader discussion late. Can anyone tell me why it's not being debated here (or much of anywhere). I'd also appreciate some good reading and website recommendations regarding energy issues.
Thanks,
Markhttp://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/amory_lovins_on_winning_the_oil_endgame.html

Business truth. You cannot conserve your way into growth. (It is not a long term solution).

Population increases, electrical toys increase, and we are becoming more environmentally concerned so we are shutting down some of the older coal plants. That puts pressure on the business model.
Have a happy.
d

PU has a half-life of 24.000 years but luckily is a very heavy element too, which makes it a bit harder to be distributed by air as far as I understand it.

In a totally related subject the results of some regional German polls happening earlier this week are in, showing a doubling to tripling in support for the German Green Party, making Winfried Kretschmann the first green governor in Germany. :-)

Mar 26 2011:
Making spent fuel rods that will be dangerous longer than modern man has been on the planet is Not the way to go. Until every home/building has solar panels on them we shouldn't even talk about the need for nuclear power or more coal plants.

Mar 24 2011:
I believe we don´t have the right to make the world a dangerous damp site for future generations. That is what nuclear energy does. The energy problem is a difficult one, one that needs to be solve and tackled from many angles. One of them is the reduction of energy consumption. Our societies squander energy. We need to see energy in a different entire light. Another one has to do with what Ken Robinson says about revolutionazing education. We must allow all the potential of children to come out. They´ll surely come up with new and better solutions.
To cut the story short, I´m totally against nuclear enegy.

Mar 24 2011:
(QUOTE)I believe that we need to invest in and deploy nuclear energy. We have a much better chance of innovating and surviving our way through a nuclear energy era than we do through the current fossil fuel era extended for a couple of hundred more years. What do you believe?(END QUOTE)

A rethink needed there Bill.

Just look at the Ice core records there HAS ALWAYS been a catastrophic disaster after NATURAL Co2 reaches around 400ppm. In the last 12 catastrophic disasters,there has been a correlation of;

A SEISMIC Co2 rise=THIS TIME,YES.

A spiral arm encounter,= THIS TIME,YES.

A Galactic Equator encounter,= THIS TIME,YES.

A magnetic reversal,= THIS TIME ““IS IMMINANT”“,SO YES.

A deep ice age after,= TIME FRAME EVIDENCE AGREES,!! SO YES.

An extinction event, = TIME FRAME EVIDENCE AGREES,!! SO YES.

An encounter with a Photon Band =THIS TIME YES.

A Harmonic convergence = THIS TIME YES.

At the EXACT same position in space where there has two major extinction events, Cambrian and Permian Now join to that fact, this interglacial warm period is due to end circa 2012 and we just happen to be crossing the thin magnetic disc of the Galactic Plane circa 2012,plus a ““magnetic reversal imminent”” circa 2012 says National Geographic.

Mar 24 2011:
ALL NUCLEAR REACTORS AND WEAPONS NEED TO BE DISMANTLED WELL BEFORE DEC. 2012 BECAUSE OF THE COMING GALACTIC WAVES WHEN WE CROSS THE GALACTIC EQUATOR,These galactic waves will bring liquefaction parts of the Earth's surface,Earthquakes,mountain building and vastly increased Vulcanism.

How does one person get life-threatening information that you know to be profoundly true,across to the rest of the world in a hurry?,I don't know,but I am trying to anyway.

Dec 2012 will be the end of the World as we now know it. It’s just Is history repeating it’s self…. AGAIN?

We ARE in the SAME location as the end-Permian extinction…. AGAIN.

We ARE in the SAME spiral arm as the end-Permian extinction….. AGAIN

We are crossing the SAME thin magnetic disc of the Galactic Plane equator .....AGAIN

We ARE experiencing the SAME increase in Volcanic activity as the end-Permian extinction…. AGAIN

We ARE experiencing the SAME increase in Co2 as the end-Permian extinction ....AGAIN

We ARE experiencing the SAME increase in OCEAN temperature just before the end-Permian extinction ...AGAIN

Co2 RISE IS FROM INCREASED SUB-MARINE VOLCANIC- EARTHQUAKE ACTIVITY JUST AS IAN PLIMER HAS STATED IN “HEAVEN AND EARTH” YOU DO NOT NEED ANY MORE EVIDENCE FOR PROOF OF INCREASED SEISMIC,SUB-MARINE VOLCANIC OR EARTHQUAKE ACTIVITY THAN THE OCEANS WARMING AND AN INCREASE OF CO2.

Long term Seismic activity trend Monthly number of volcanic earthquakes at Nyamuragira, 1960-92

Mar 24 2011:
Bill, don't worry you are not alone - I too am a supporter of atomic power - I won't call in nuclear that is a made up word. I think we need to have a real grown up debate about the whole issue of energy - how we get it (not just generation, how reliable it is, what are the risks, etc. etc.
The real issues are:- The human race is not getting smaller in terms of population, our whole economic model is based on increased consumption.
Therefore we need increasing amounts of energy, oil & gas will not last forever and they, along with coal, at the moment are our biggest providers of energy. While climate change and it's link to CO2 is a still really not a fact but a theory, do not believe we can keep on polluting the atmosphere with CO2 and have no impact.
Other forms of energy wind, solar and bio have inate problems. Wind - only available approx. 30% of the time, solar - only when its daylight and bio - why grow food when you can grow energy.
Therefore there is a requirement to provide energy for a globally increasing poplulation without producing CO2 and making it reliably without wasting valuable crop space.
Atomic power is the answer, I appreciate there are risks but the risks of continuing to burn fossil fuels mean the risks of atomic power are worth taking. Couple this with the recyclability of the fuel and the use of waste to power breeder reactors and I think the case is a compelling one.
I realise some of my thoughts may be controversial, but lets debate.

Mar 23 2011:
I agree with you BUT we are doing the "Homer Simpson" all the time. We handle Nuclear material and waste in such an irresponsible fashion, it is appalling.
Even the Japanese, who have shown a great deal of discipline lately, after the earthquake are unable to perform and guarantee proper maintenance of their nuclear plants.
Therefore, unless we change the subject matter into control for proper management, the human species will not earn our right to harness this energy.
Very similar situation we have with the monetary/economic subject, the wrong hands=the worst outcome attained.

Mar 22 2011:
A friend recently posted me this amazing bbc documentary by investigative journalist Adam Curtis, filmed in 1992 on nuclear power called 'A is for 'Atom'. It's the equally fascinating and troubling history of the industry with interviews by enlarge, from all the the original managers, engineers and scientists that invented the Atomic Age, for many their last before passing away.
This makes this film a container of vital evidence of the inherent problems with nuclear power and renders any 'pro' arguments from the modern industry & 'experts' as 'mark II opinions', many deeply embedded with pro-numbers dogma without any objectivity, loaded, lobbied and often plain wrong about the facts.

The film also contains the actual dictaphone message accidentally recorded at Three Mile Island as well as various ominous General Electric Nuclear adverts from the time too.
It more than details the fundamental reactor design issues that when considered, makes ALL nuclear reactors by design default, inherently unsafe. The repercussions of which Japan is currently encountering and suffering with - directly.
I believe anyone who watches will have to concede the core safety issue (when taken just from the standpoint of submarine-safe limit of 60mw to say, 600mw alone) renders any talk of the 'safety' of new mark IV reactors totally obsolete.

Well worth watching - whatever your standpoint I believe that safety cannot assured on any level, watch directly here from the horses mouths. This would also explain the hasty global enquiries happening into the Nuclear industry from individual nations right now.

Mar 21 2011:
am sorry the numbers are not exact of course but i've watched in a movie that the geothermal energy is abundant more than many other types of energy source its about we can collect from the fields of the geothermal energy about 2000 zeta joule and the world consumption is 0.5 zeta joule per a year which indicates that the geothermal energy is sufficient for another 4000 thousand year if the rate of energy consumption stayed in the range.
another point i would like to discuses that there are tow types of nuclear power nuclear fission and nuclear fusion i read once that the great deference is that the nuclear fusion wastes takes less period to be decay ( decompose ) i think the fusion takes about 30 to 40 year but fission may stay for mare than 100 year

".. nuclear fusion wastes takes less .. etc "
is not that simple. End result of fusion is helium, which is nor radioactive. However, in the process of fusion
other materials (walls of the chamber etc) may be irradiated and become radioactive. How much, we do not know as yet, as process is still in the early research stage.
The case of fission is even more complex. Current reactors produce lot of 'waste', which may be active for 1000 years IF left to its natural process.
However, next generation of fission reactors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactors
produces much less, of short lasting waste, AND - it can burn the existing 'waste'.

Mar 19 2011:
Nuclear energy is an excellent energy source however, we should combined it with different fuels as well. I support the use of biofuels however, it seems right now it isn't economically feasible. Cellulosic bio fuels gives me hope. But really in the end, it all boils down to the economy, that is the main limitation in allowing biofuels to be widely used. I am not a fan of biofuels from corn or any other food crop. These food crops (such as corn) have been artificially selected over years for the purpose to eat not to produce biofuels. Our feedstock for biofuels should not be the same crops that feed us due to bringing a variety of issues regarding resource partitioning (how much of this crop goes to feeding vs. fuel source). To have an effective biofuel we need to design a crop that is specified for this use (ex. developing a crop like switch grass which possess weaker cell walls which could reduce bio-fuel pre-treatment costs.

Mar 18 2011:
A friend just posted me this amazing bbc documentary by investigative journalist Adam Curtis on nuclear power called
'A is for 'Atom'. Its the equally fascinating and troubling history of the industry with interviews by enlarge with all the original scientists - as well as the actual dictaphone message accidentally recorded at Three Mile Island as well as the ominous General Electric Nuclear adverts from the time too.

Mar 18 2011:
For many yrs. I have self studied marine bio. & related aspects of it-just a hobby of mine & I am SURE NOT an expert on this BUT: There are very strong, swift, deep currents in the worlds oceans that might be tapped for energy (?). Has anyone thought about these? If it would be feasible to do so without harming the waters & wildlife?
Just a thought & suggestion folks.

Mar 17 2011:
there is struggle between using nuclear energy , Non-Fossil Fuel and oil . i think Non-Fossil Fuel is not the best current option we have , we may be able to use it on future but now its not an option . the second lethal option that is driving the world to global warming is oil , but we must find another fuel source to find a future to our children in next decades .
i think the most suitable energy is nuclear energy since very small mass can generate huge amount of energy with low cost and it can be spread around the world under global supervision .

Mar 17 2011:
Maven Research has been contacting radiation and energy experts to get their perspective on what is happening in Japan. They were kind enough to post some of their early findings via these experts... (Note: they don't actually say who the experts are so I guess we have to take it on faith that they really are experts. I sent them a note asking for a full disclosure, I'll report back on what they send me.)

you stated: "I believe that we need nuclear energy and we need a lot of it." and "I believe we have a much better chance of innovating and surviving our way through a nuclear energy era".

Now that Fukushima 1's reactor number 2 just blew up, measurements of 8217 micro Sievert at the plant's gates do the rounds and the wind appears to be heading south towards Tokyo, which means that the situation is beginning to get really serious (if those claims hold true) - have you changed some of your beliefs yet?

And if this does not turn out to be true, why don't change your beliefs anyway? Afterall, it could as well be true - we can't really tell right now - which is somewhat all the worse.

PS: What disturbs me a bit is that General Electric - a sponsor of TED Conversations - also supplied reactors 1+2 of Fukushima I. - see table on Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_Nuclear_Power_Plant
But that doesn't necessarily mean that they are responsible for any failure that occurred at one of these plants during the past few days. After all, it just wasn't the right place to built such a design, but who could have known or even thought about that - and who, who could have, should have?

(if talking about sponsors is against rules, please just delete this posting)